TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 2092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent : Shri P. Dinesh, Advocate ORDER Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 23.02.2017. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 2008-2009. 2. The solitary effective ground reads as follow:- "Whether on the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein certain disallowances were made. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3.2 With regard to the additions sustained by the first appellate authority, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty amounting to Rs.31,60,854. 3.3 Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound raised, submitted that with regard to the quantum assessment the Department has not accepted the first appellate authority's order and has preferred further appeal, and therefore, in the event the tax payable under the normal provisions are higher than the MAT provision, necessarily penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be imposed. The learned DR also referred to the Board Circular No.25/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to additions / disallowances made under normal provisions. Subsequently, the provisions of Explanation 4 to sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act have been substituted by Finance Act, 2015, which provide for the method of calculating the amount of tax sought to be evaded for situations even where the income determined under the general provisions is less than the income declared for th....